[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

01601: RE: [WDDM] Fwd: RE:LINK.

From: "wingsprd" <wingsprd(at)goldenwest.net>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 13:03:31 -0700
Subject: RE: [WDDM] Fwd: RE:LINK.

Antonio -- unless our decisions are binding, what's the point?

Please look at Amendment XXIX at www.FirstDemocracy.org
to see one model on how to make that work.

And the novel, AMENDMENT XXIX, lays out the possibilities
that DD holds in story format for mass consumption. It is
intended to spark the imagination of the general public where
all the dry academic proposals of the past have done nothing.

B. Thomas Marking
admin1(at)firstdemocracy.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Antonio Rossin
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 3:04 PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Fwd: RE:LINK.

I agree about DD as to develop the capacity for citizens
to choose policies to be put into the agenda.

I remain perplexed as about those decisions to be binding
on their legislators. I guess, once the people have voted,
they implicitly trust yheir legislators accordingly, beyond
any certainty but by absolute proxy for four or five years,
this is what politics stands for, so late

I mean, starting DD through politics looks like an oxymoron.

Regards,

antonio





wingsprd ha scritto:

The Direct Democracy Movement needs to be about developing the
capacity for

citizens to choose the issues they wish to vote on -- whether that is
world peace

or banning crunchy peanut butter -- and then making sure that those
decisions

are binding on their legislators. The movement must never advocate a
specific

policy, or it will lose all credibility. DDM must focus only on the
mechanism.



B. Thomas Marking

admin1(at)FirstDemocracy.org



-----Original Message-----
*From:* Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan
[vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:38 PM
*To:* wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
*Subject:* Re: RE: [WDDM] Fwd: RE:LINK.





Dear all,
The past few opinions on whether we should link up with a peace
initiative highlights the key problems facing WDDM.

Nicholas Durand has pointed out that we should be concerned with
promoting Direct Democracy rather than peace, human rights, gender
equality etc. This raises the philosophical question - whether
promoting Direct Democracy is synonymous with promoting these human
values. Taking a broad view and if we speak from the heart it is
'yes'. This is why Nicholas himself says he is for peace at the end of
his post. However there is always the tendency to allow the mind to
supercede the heart and make it the deciding authority. Inevitably the
mind sees several issues in it and wants to tackle each one separately
and not mix them up together.

If only if we think and act from our heart then then we would tend to
integrate matters. Problems would tend to get simplified rather than
multiplied. Blind faith is also dangerous. An enlightened approach is
needed. Georges Metanomski's caution is worth noting. However
everything in this world is action and reaction. If only there is an
enlightened focus on peace then the agressiveness of the
action-reaction cycle would come down paving the way for lasting peace.

PVR





On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 Nicolas Durand wrote :

Dear all,
I also support the idea of using our normal decisional process.
But this raises an interesting concept issue (and you know that I am an
endless supporter of peace):
Who should we partner with?

If a neo-Nazi party wants to send a petition to the UN to commemorate
Hitler's death date, will we support this?

I take an extreme example to make my point: our aim is to promote direct
democracy, not peace, human rights, gender equality and the like. HOPEFULLY,
the people will WANT peace, human rights, gender equality, etc., but is it
really up to US to promote these values?

We could have a "current petitions" links page with all DD real-world
examples, but then, we must be ready to put ALL DD initiatives on it.
Just my opinion. Again, I want peace as well!

Take care,

Nico

-----Original Message-----

From: mantell

Sent: jeudi, 28. février 2008 06:24

To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net; wddm(at)mkolar.org;
Nicolas Durand; George L. Kokkas Law Office

Subject: Re: [WDDM] Fwd: RE:LINK.

Hello Mirek,

I like your idea. I'll support it.

But I'd like to use our normal decisional process. Why not do this by a

vote of the executive board? If the executive board buys the idea

quickly, then we could act immediately thereafter. Passage by the

executive board would normally be followed by a membership-wide

referendum to validate the executive board action more permanently.

So, I recommend that we use our charter mechanism for action. It would

be the right thing, both for this issue, and for dealing with future

issues.

Mark


----------------------------------------

Miroslav Kolar wrote:

Do you have any objections to join the WDDM site into the network of
global peace activists suggested by http://www.peace365.org ? :


----- Forwarded message from marekmzielinski(at)hotmail.co.uk -----
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:57:55 +0000
From: marek zielinski
Subject: RE:LINK.

Dear Peace Activists,

Would there be any obstacle to link our web-sites together
since the aims of activities of our organizations lead the the same goal:
GLOBAL PEACE FOREVER,

Please send me a .jpg form of your organization's Logo

In Peace

Marek Zielinski

Initiator of www.peace365.org


[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]